I finished the Lotus Sutra (this version, translated by Burton Watson) today and have lots of things I am going to have to go deeper into in order to understand the text fully, but I was going over some of the unfamliar terms and phrases in the glossary and came across these:

Correct Law:

According to Buddhist belief, after the death of a Buddha, his teachings pass throughthree periods of phases of development. In the first, known as the period of theCorrect Law, Buddhism is a living religion and those who practice it attainenlightenment through its teachings. The period of the Correct Law following thedeath of Shakyamuni Buddha is usually said to be a thousand years in length, thoughsome sources describe it as five hundred years long.

Counterfeit Law:

Second period following the death of a Buddha. During this perid, Buddhism becomesincreasingly formalized, people's connection with it weakens, and progressively fewerof them are able to gain enlightenment through its teachings. Some sources describethe period of the Counterfeit Law following Shakyamuni's death as a thousand years inlength, others as five hundred years.

Latter Day of the Law:

Third of the three periods which the teachings of a Buddha pass through after hisdeath. In this third and last period, the teachings of the buddha lose their powerto lead people to enlightenment. It is said to last for ten thousand years or more.

Reading these got me thinking... if we're in the Latter Day of the Law, what is our real objective as Buddhists? Something tells me that Burton Watson may have been taking some liberties with these explanations in the glossary, or that maybe there is not a clear consensus on these concepts and their effective time frames... in any event, I thought this would be the right place to ask for thoughts on the matter. So... does anyone have any ideas that might clarify this?

I think you are right, the definitions in the glossary are very simplified and the true meanings of these terms can only be understood in the light of the Dharma. It's meaning within the content of the teaching. These terms are used in the Sutra to show the natural cycle of the Wheel of the Law. After all, it could not be a wheel unless it came back around to where it started from- ignorance. There certainly has been times before when the teaching has been "more potent" in the world- leading others to the Enlightenment experience but, it is a fallacy to take these terms to an individual perspective. We know from the Correct Law, Counterfeit Law and Latter Day Law only the cycle of the teachings, not individual perspectives to it.

The Dharma is solely an individual affair. I believe that certain individuals have great capacity for liberation, attainment, "Enlightenment" experience or higher mental states, there are just so many more people now, the world so complex that it is even harder to recognize. As long as the teachings are in the world, the individual has the ability to follow the path to Enlightenment.

As for objective as a Buddhist, I can give only what I understand as my own at this point. To understand my true nature deeper in the context of the Sutras, be more mindful in life, be a person of virtue and integrity, spread kindness, understanding in my community. It is truly joyous practice. I enjoy trying to "relax" and see the world in the light of the Dharma. I enjoy reading the Sutras. I enjoy intellectually applying teachings.

There are a great number of practicing Buddhists on the saha world. We are very lucky to live now rather than after the Law has vanished. We must know about the Cycle of the Law because it is the truth, there is nothing in it that should cause apathy toward practice but, confirmation of known laws. Even when all the teachings have vanished there will be individuals who dwell in meditation, seeking the Dharma.

Hope I helped?? Here is an interesting fact- there are as many people connected today by the social media site Facebook, that there was on the entire Earth at the time of Sakyamuni Buddha.

Thank you very much, this is precisely the kind of thoughtful response for which I was hoping. Further, it sounds like the conclusions I am reaching on my own are are not terribly dissimilar to that which others may be inclined to find as they practice. Sometimes I just feel like I need a little confirmation to make sure I'm not being totally stupid about something.

Hickersonia wrote:Something tells me that Burton Watson may have been taking some liberties with these explanations in the glossary

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with the something that tells you this.

An important concept in Japanese Buddhism is that of mappo: a late stage of decline in Buddhism that coincides with the present. The more fundamental question to ask is this: what kind of practice is most appropriate to the time and place, to the present? (think of upaya, skillful means) Mr Watson has a very specific answer in mind. Other schools have different ideas. For instance, the Japanese Pure Land schools argue that the only suitable practice in mappo is nembutsu, or reciting the name of Amida Buddha. Some put more emphasis on mappo, some put less emphasis on it. I think Watson overemphasizes it.

I'm really glad to hear of your enthusiasm for the Lotus Sutra. I encourage you to check out another translation. The Threefold Lotus Sutra is a good place to start. The BDK translation is very good, but expensive. I like the Senchu Murano translation as well. Basically... anything but Watson.

When I say that the Dharma is an individual affair I mean that- one must come to an understanding of the Dharma for oneself. Not that the practice should be solitary. In fact, in the context of the Lotus Sutra, it is impossible! Since there is no separate self, all Dharma practice, even that of "those who dwell and delight in seclusion" is for and only useful it its application in the world.

[quote="Hickersonia"]I finished the Lotus Sutra (this version, translated by Burton Watson) today and have lots of things I am going to have to go deeper into in order to understand the text fully, 1

From what i know of is that Burton Watson translation of Lotus sutra was was taken up by an american university. There was committee of experts of 9 members selected by the university. Each and every word translation was discussed and maximum care was taken to come out with an exact versionram

I don't think the concern is the translation in the Watson edition. It is the underlying sectarian assumptions which influence commentary and definitions within the text. Since this is an issue with any version of the Lotus Sutra, it is good to read more than one translation from more than one source so that you can develop a fuller understanding. The Kato translation of the Threefold Lotus Sutra is put out by Rissho Kosei-kai so the definitions and assumptions are from their perspective which are different from those of the Watson SGI influenced version.

Noah wrote:When I say that the Dharma is an individual affair I mean that- one must come to an understanding of the Dharma for oneself. Not that the practice should be solitary. In fact, in the context of the Lotus Sutra, it is impossible! Since there is no separate self, all Dharma practice, even that of "those who dwell and delight in seclusion" is for and only useful it its application in the world.

Exactly about the Lotus Sutra translations. My personal edition is the translation by Senchu Murano of Nichiren Shu. The scholarship is excellent and for religious use it is beautiful; the back papers informative.gasshoRory

Namu Kanzeon Bosatsu Chih-I:The Tai-ching states "the women in the realms of Mara, Sakra and Brahma all neither abandoned ( their old) bodies nor received (new) bodies. They all received buddhahood with their current bodies (genshin)" Thus these verses state that the dharma nature is like a great ocean. No right or wrong is preached (within it) Ordinary people and sages are equal, without superiority or inferiority Paul, Groner "The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture"eds. Tanabe p. 58